Full Judgment Text
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 432
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097 OF 2017
MAHENDRA KAUR ARORA APPELLANT
VERSUS
HDFC BANK LTD. RESPONDENT
O R D E R
th
1. The appellant-landlady is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30 July, 2015
1 th
passed by the Division Bench as also the order dated 09 January, 2012
2
passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed before the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, preferred by her under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant-owner of a commercial premises
3
at Vashistha Marg, Raja Park,Jaipur had leased out a part of the said premises
to the respondent-Bank for a period of nine years in terms of the lease
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2024.05.16
16:21:33 IST
Reason:
D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No.332 of 2012
1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8464 of 2009
2
Shop No.485 and basement
3
1
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
th
agreement dated 13 October, 2000, executed between the parties. The
relevant clauses of the said lease agreement are reproduced hereinbelow :
“LESSEE'S COVENANTS:
2 (j) On the expiry of the said period of the lease or any
renewal thereof, the Lessee shall deliver the demised premises in
such order and condition as in consistent with the terms, covenants
and conditions on the part of the Lessee herein contained (save and
except damage to the demised premises by the fire unless the fire
has occurred due to negligence of the Lessee), riots, earthquake,
storm, war, civil commotion, acts of God and other conditions over
which the Lessee shall have no control) SUBJECT ALWAYS to what
is stated hereinafter.
ASSIGNMENT/TERMINATION/RENEWAL
6 (a) The Lessee shall be entitle to assign or sub-let or otherwise
allow use and occupation of the demised premises or any part
thereof to its business associates, affiliate companies but not
beyond the tenure of this lease or renewal thereof (if any) , as
mentioned hereunder.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the Lessee shall
always be entitled, without assigning any reason, to terminate this
lease at any time before the expiry of the tenure of this lease or any
renewal period (if any) thereof, by giving to the Lessor three months’
prior notice in writing.”
3. In terms of the lease agreement, the agreed monthly rent of the
premises was fixed at ₹ 28,625/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand six hundred
th
twenty five only). Vide letter dated 10 May, 2004, the respondent-Bank
terminated the lease agreement by issuing a three months’ notice in terms of
th
clause 6 thereof. The said notice period was made effective from 16 August,
2004.
4. It is the version of the appellant-landlady that the respondent-Bank did
2
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
not hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the leased premises to
th
her and instead, continued occupying the subject premises upto 18 June,
2006, when the keys were finally handed over to her. It is also the stand of the
appellant-landlady that the respondent-Bank did not pay her the use and
th
occupation charges in respect of the subject premises from 16 August, 2004 till
th
20 February, 2006, after adjusting the security deposit of ₹ 85,875/- (Rupees
Eighty five thousand eight hundred seventy five only) towards the rent payable
for three months.
5. Aggrieved by the non-payment of rent by the respondent-Bank, the
appellant filed an application before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur on
th
20 February, 2006 seeking eviction and recovery of the arrears of rent. It was
after institution of the aforesaid petition by the appellant-landlady that the
respondent-Bank handed over the keys of the premises to her before the
th
Presiding Officer of the Rent Control Tribunal on 18 June, 2006. The petition
filed by the appellant-landlady was contested to the hilt by the respondent-Bank
who also filed a counter claim seeking refund of the security amount along with
th
interest @ 24% per annum compounded quarterly, w.e.f. 17 August, 2004, till
th
realization. Vide judgment dated 10 April, 2008, the rent application filed by
the appellant-landlady was decreed in her favour and the counter claim filed by
the respondent-Bank was rejected.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent-Bank filed an
3
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated
th
05 March, 2009. As a consequence thereof, the decree passed in favour of the
appellant-landlady was set aside and the counter claim filed by the respondent-
Bank was allowed. The said order was challenged by the appellant-landlady by
filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High
th
Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09
January, 2012. Instead of approaching this Court for relief against the said
order, the appellant filed a misconceived intra court appeal that has been
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable vide
th
order dated 30 July, 2015. Both the orders are under appeal before us.
7. Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellant-landlady submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in upholding
the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal whereby the decree passed in
favour of the appellant-landlady was set aside inasmuch as the Court failed to
th
appreciate the fact that the notice dated 10 May, 2004 issued by the
respondent-Bank referred to its proposal to handover possession of the subject
th
premises on 16 August, 2004. It is urged that the security deposit could have
been refunded to the respondent-Bank contemporaneous to handing over
vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the appellant-landlord,
which in the instant case was not done. It is therefore, submitted that the
obligation cast on the appellant-landlady to refund the security amount in terms
of the lease agreement did not arise till the respondent-Bank actually vacated
4
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
th
the subject premises which admittedly remain in its possession till 18 June,
2006.
8. Per contra , Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the respondent-Bank seeks to rely on the terms and conditions of
the lease agreement and, in particular clauses of the Deposit Agreement dated
th
13 October, 2000. Clauses 6 and 8 of the Deposit Agreement read as follows :
“6. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that on the said
Lease Agreement of any renewal thereof expiring by efflux of time or
coming to an end for any reason whatsoever as provided in the said
Lease Agreement the Lessor shall refund (without any deduction on
any account and without interest) the said deposit to the Lessee
simultaneously with the Lessee removing itself/ its officers /
employees using the leased premises from and vacating the leased
premises and giving charge thereof to the Lessor (reasonable wear
and tear, damages/ Loss to / destruction of the leased premises by
fire not caused by the willful neglect on the part of the Lessee, its
officers /employees using the leased premises, Civil commotion,
riots, air attack, act of God and anything else beyond the control of
the Lessee excepted).”
8. In the event the Lessor does not refund the said deposit to the
Lessee in full, at the time of the said Lease Agreement or any
renewal thereof comes to an end, as aforesaid, then the
consequences mentioned in para nos. i) to iii) hereunder shall follow:
i) The Lessee shall (without prejudice to its rights and remedies in
law) , not be obliged or bound to vacate and give charge of the
leased premises to the Lessor and the Lessee shall be entitled to
use or permit , the leased premises to be used by any person of
its choice without being liable to pay any rent, outgoings or
damages to the Lessor until such time as the Lessor does not
refund to the Lessee the said deposit in full ; and
ii) In addition, the Lessor shall be liable to pay to the Lessee
interest @ 24% p. a. compounded quarterly, on the said deposit
from the date of termination or expiry of the said Lessee
Agreement or any renewal thereof till the date of refund of the
said deposit by the Lessor to the Lessee; and
5
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
iii) In the event the Lessor is unable to return the deposit as
aforesaid for a period of 30 days from the date it becomes due,
the Lessee shall be liberty to further sub- let the leased premises
for period of not less than 12 months at a time on such terms and
conditions as the Lessee may in its absolute discretion may
deem fit”
9. It is the stand of the respondent-Bank that in terms of the aforesaid
clauses of the Deposit Agreement, the appellant-landlady was under an
obligation to refund the security deposit to the respondent-Bank at the time of
handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the leased premises, which
she failed to do and therefore, the aforesaid clauses entitle the respondent-
Bank to continue using the leased premises itself or by any other person of its
choice without any liability to pay any rent/outgoings/damages.
10. We are afraid, the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel
for the respondent-Bank is not persuasive. The language of Clause 6 of the
Deposit Agreement makes it abundantly clear that the respondent-Bank was
liable to refund the deposit amount contemporaneous to the Bank removing
itself from the leased premises and handing over vacant possession thereof to
the appellant-landlady and giving charge thereof to her, which procedure in the
instant case, had not been followed. There is nothing on record to demonstrate
that any steps were taken by the respondent-Bank calling upon the appellant-
landlady to remain present at the subject premises for purposes of handing
over/taking over possession of the leased premises on a particular date and
time and giving charge thereof to her for her to refund the security deposit
6
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
simultaneously to the respondent-Bank.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned
th
order dated 09 January, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge that has
th
upheld the order dated 05 March, 2009, passed by the Appellate Rent
th
Tribunal, Jaipur. However, the order dated 30 July, 2015 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court is maintained for the reason that no intra-court
appeal could have been preferred by the appellant-Landlady against an order
passed by the learned Single Judge on a petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. As a result, Civil Appeal No. 6096 of 2017 is allowed, the
th
judgment dated 10 April, 2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal is restored and the
decree passed in favour of the appellant-landlady is upheld. Civil Appeal No.
6097 of 2017 is however dismissed as there is no error in the finding returned
by the Division Bench of the High Court regarding maintainability of an appeal
th
against the order dated 09 January, 2012, passed in proceedings under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Parties are left to bear their own expenses.
……………………….......................J.
( HIMA KOHLI )
……………………….......................J.
( AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH )
NEW DELHI
th
08 MAY, 2024
GA
7
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 6096-6097/2017
ITEM NO.115 COURT NO.11 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6096-6097/2017
MAHENDRA KAUR ARORA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HDFC BANK LTD. RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 08-05-2024 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
For Appellant(s) Ms. Sobha Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raghuveer Pujari, Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Varun Phogat, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR
Mr. Himanshu Dagar, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Sejwal, Adv.
Mr. Saujanya, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Chanda, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following
O R D E R
The Civil Appeal No.6096 of 2017 is allowed and Civil Appeal
No.6097 of 2017 is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable order.
(Nand Kishor) (Geeta Ahuja)
Court Master (NSH) Assistant Registrar-cum-PS
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
8